Most people in Scotland have little or no experience of what happens when nationalism develops and independence is achieved. It might therefore be worthwhile to describe a modern example of a split, which has turned out to be less than amicable. It is one the main reasons why I am not a nationalist.
Growing up in Scotland under the shadow of the Cold war, we all kept hearing of the Soviet Union, but few of us had really heard of the republics, which made up this union. If a Scot had heard of Kiev and if he were asked where it was, he would have replied in the Soviet Union or often simply in Russia. We all used the word Russia to refer to the whole country. Incidentally this is exactly how Russians describe the UK. In common Russian usage, someone from Edinburgh is from England and he is English. Russians are aware of something called Scotland, though they are frequently hazy about just quite where it is, but they find it strange and pedantic if a person insists on being called Scottish.
Ukraine had been part of the Russian Empire for centuries. At times various parts of Ukraine had been part of Poland or part of the Austro-Hungarian or Ottoman Empires, but despite shifting boundaries no one much thought of Ukraine as anything other than a part of Russia. Up until the end of the 19th century it was often known in Russian as Little Russia. There were some differences between Ukrainians and Russians and there was a branch of the East Slavic language, which had developed in parts of the Ukraine, spoken usually by peasants, partly owing to the fact that in these regions there had been foreign rule.
This Ukrainian language has much in common with Scots. Indeed one of the best parallels between Scots and English is that of the parallel between Ukrainian and Russian. When growing up in rural Aberdeenshire I spoke Doric, the local form of Scots, and this language really was very different from English, so much so that at times people even in Aberdeen would struggle to understand what I said, let alone in other parts of Scotland. English people, of course, could barely understand Doric at all. In growing up I learned really three languages. Doric which I used exclusively with people from Aberdeenshire, Scots, which was really English with an accent and a few extra words and slight grammar changes, which I used with other Scots and English, which I used in writing and in communicating with anyone who might struggle with Scots.
This situation is very similar to what happened in the Ukraine. People in the western parts of the Ukraine often spoke pure Ukrainian, while they nearly all could speak pure Russian as well, people in the east of Ukraine spoke mainly Russian with a Ukrainian accent with a few extra words and slight changes in grammar, some others spoke a sort of mixture of Russian and Ukrainian. Everyone adapted to the linguistic environment they were in modifying their speech so as to be understood.
Russians can understand Ukrainian, about as well as someone from southern England can understand very broad Scots, like Doric. Until relatively recently Ukrainian was rarely written. The greatest writer born in what is now Ukraine, Gogol’, for instance, wrote in Russian while using some Ukrainian words, rather like Walter Scott wrote in English, but allowed characters to use Scots words.
During the Soviet Union Russians and Ukrainians would travel to each others’ republics, without particularly thinking that they were going anywhere foreign. There had been historical tensions between these peoples, but no one much thought of each other as being particularly different. This all changed in 1991 when the Soviet Union collapsed and Ukraine unilaterally declared independence.
What happened next is an object lesson for Scotland. During the Soviet Union, no one ever expected that the three core republics of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus’ would ever split. These places had been united for centuries. They were known as “Brother peoples” to all Soviet citizens. Everyone could speak Russian in all three of these republics, yet suddenly a Muscovite found himself in a foreign country when he visited Minsk or Kiev.
In Ukraine, Ukrainian nationalism began to be felt very strongly. One result of this was a change in education policy so that Ukrainian history was emphasised, and with it came the development of a brand of history which tended to blame Russia for everything. Tragic events that occurred in the Soviet Union, were blamed on Russia. It was forgotten that there were Ukrainians who had been enthusiastic about the Soviet Union, it was forgotten that Ukrainians had fulfilled the orders of the party, it was forgotten that everyone suffered under the Soviet regime including Russians. Naturally this retelling of history by Ukrainians angered Russians, leading to Russians emphasising history in such a way that it was negative about Ukrainians, remembering, for example how many Ukrainians fought as allies with the Germans during World War II.
The Ukrainian language was made the national language of Ukraine, even though it is spoken exclusively only really in the west of the Ukraine and that in vast areas east of the Dnepr river and in the south and in Crimea, Russian is almost exclusively spoken. This meant that huge numbers of Russian speakers living in the Ukraine found, that their children were being sent to schools where only Ukrainian would be taught, found that jobs and promotions depended on knowledge of a language they barely knew.
The consequence of these divisive nationalistic policies, was enmity between Ukraine and Russia, which led to Russia deciding not to treat Ukraine as a friend, thus deciding not to give friends’ rates for gas and oil supplies. Moreover, when Ukraine sided with Georgia in the short war, which happened in 2008, Ukraine found itself isolated, its friends in Western Europe deserting it, and for one horrible moment it looked as if Russia and Ukraine might go to war. Many Ukrainians and Russians now look at each other with contempt. Russians are often made to feel unwelcome in Ukraine. It is not unknown for some Ukrainians to demand that a Russian speaks Ukrainian, or that Ukrainians carry on speaking Ukrainian even if a Russian is struggling to understand. Ukrainians are now treated as foreigners in Russia, and vice versa, having to obtain a work permit and residence permit to live and work there.
Worst of all within Ukraine there is something akin to civil war. The eastern half of Ukraine is the blue side, Russian speaking and largely with a Russian identity. The western half is the orange side, largely Ukrainian speaking and looking westwards, hoping to be a part of Europe and the EU. The Orange Revolution of 2004/2005 was really a sort of civil war between these parts. It still continues with the blue half now in the ascendancy, the leader of the orange half in prison.
Ukrainian independence, did not bring what the nationalists promised. Ukraine is impoverished, and isolated diplomatically. It is divided amongst itself and its nationalism has led to a deterioration of its relationship with Russia, to such an extent that many Russians refuse to visit some parts of the Ukraine for fear of what might happen if their accents are heard there.
Scotland is not Ukraine of course, but it would not be hard to imagine a new curriculum being introduced which emphasised Scottish history and did so by blaming England for everything. Indeed this is already happening. It would not be difficult to imagine an independent Scotland making Gaelic and Scots the national languages of Scotland, teaching them in schools, teaching the literature at the expense of the foreign English literature. Indeed, this is already beginning to happen. It is not difficult under these circumstances to imagine relations between England and Scotland deteriorating as those between Russia and Ukraine have deteriorated. Indeed, this is already happening, with English people showing increased enmity to Scots.
The reason why I’m not a nationalist is that I have seen what it has done to Russia and the Ukraine. It is because I believe that all nationalisms sow seeds of division and discord and because, as someone who feels both Scottish and British, I don’t want the same sort of strife to happen here.
Share on Facebook
8 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Old Albion
July 31, 2012 at 7:03 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Do you ever consider the English might just be a tiny bit pissed off with devolution for everyone, except us?
A total lack of fairness, equality and democracy for England?
And the perpetual rattle of bleating Scots?
jfjoubert
August 1, 2012 at 8:50 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Wait… your taking relations between the Ukraine and Russia as an example in favour of erasing national identity in favour of a more harmonious world? Why not have the whole of England lobotomized, I’m sure they might be more agreeable then lol!
Alison Paterson
August 1, 2012 at 8:54 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
“it would not be hard to imagine a new curriculum being introduced which emphasised Scottish history and did so by blaming England for everything. Indeed this is already happening. It would not be difficult to imagine an independent Scotland making Gaelic and Scots the national languages of Scotland, teaching them in schools, teaching the literature at the expense of the foreign English literature. Indeed, this is already beginning to happen.”
I have a school age child who attends Gaelic medium school and this is certainly not my experience. Indeed we are often asked by fellow Scots about why we have sent our son to be educated through the medium of Gaelic, a “dead” language in their words.
It is unfortunate that this attitude is prevalent among so many of our so-called well educated countrymen. Sadly I cannot see the day coming where Gaelic and Scots are given priority over English in either literature or history lessons.
Alison Paterson
August 1, 2012 at 8:56 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Sorry, regarding the previous comment, I should have said in the event of becoming independent or not.
Seumas Scott
August 1, 2012 at 11:32 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Dear Effie,
I’ve lately become determined to find the positive argument for the Union so
I read your article with interest after seeing it linked on a friend’s facebook. I have at various times in my life been a Scottish Labour voter and a Scottish Nationalist but I am at all times an advocate for socialism, positivity and cooperation between the peoples of the world, and an absolute devotee to the idea of a world of colour, culture, and beautiful diversity.
I see a well written but ultimately flawed argument here, and if you don’t mind I’d like to share my reasoning: Firstly, Nationalism as a global political phenomenon has many different facets and presenting a comparison between largely inclusive Nationalism found in Scotland and the rather more sinister ethnic Nationalisms found elsewhere is misleading. Pursuing that route in order to reach the above conclusion betrays a modicum of reactionary hysteria which in turn begs the following questions: A) Are the parameters of the field of debate understood by the writer? & B) If they are, then why are they presented either falsely or hysterically?
Secondly, you state quite incorrectly that “indeed” an anti-English blame culture is being foisted upon our children through the Scottish curriculum yet present no evidence for it. I can assure you that no such anti-establishment shenanigans have filtered through to my child’s classroom where Jubilee celebrations are conducted beneath Union flag bunting regardless of the child’s political, cultural or ethnic background. In which institutions does this phenomenon occur, and do you have evidence? I wonder if you mean the advent of the long overdue ‘Scottish Studies’ subject which was first touted by a Unionist party and welcomed by all parties alike, the possibility of educating one’s children through the medium of Scottish Gaelic, or the participation of children in reciting Scots in annual Burns’ contests? I’m at a loss over this, none of the above are particularly revolutionary, rather that they are a return to the norm where an ancient country of cultural significance (one of the oldest in Europe infact) has it’s history taught as part of the regular curriculum as in most other areas of the world. Indeed, our curriculum is open to perusal by the rest of the Anglo-Sphere because English is the global language we Scots actively endorsed around the world at the expense of global diversity in that entirely shameful enterprise we call the British Empire. We are extremely fortunate to have the possibility (if we so choose) to call ourselves a tri-lingual nation where our children may have the opportunity to be educated through at least one culturally meaningful language to broaden horizons, and a global language that will allow them opportunities to meet friends from other cultures, work abroad, and see the world. Shouldn’t this be an aspiration as opposed to cause for a panic attack?
Looking at this from another angle, one could say that Ukranian cultural Imperialism smacks more of lessons learned from the British state’s well documented behaviour around the world. Sanitising the world with language and church and war and calling it civilisation? Would I rather that my children were taught to be proud of the horrors of Empire building than be taught something useful and interesting about the place they live? Frankly, no!
Given the choice between two types of Nationalism on offer here; I’m tempted to choose Scottish civic Nationalism which can be so self-effacing as to be almost embarrassed with itself. Seeking shelter beneath the Brit-Nat’s jingoism, having to muster pride over global atrocities because of an assumed divine right, having laws passed by people without qualification or democratic right to wield power, and being represented by a flag which is internationally perceived as something akin to a swastika with a good PR department is really scraping the bottom of the aspirational barrel in my opinion. Look at the Jubilee – it seems nothing makes folk take pride in being British more than acting like North Korea!
That’s Nationalism – and it’s not the positive kind.
Laura
August 2, 2012 at 7:01 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
This I feel, is a very specious argument. We shouldn’t blame England for all the bad things that happen to us, in case they get angry and do bad things to us? What about the bad stuff they actually have done? We should just suck it up because we were part of the UK during it’s lovely colonial history?
Russia has always been a very violent country and was brutal to it’s satellite states. I think Scotland just wants to have a say in how it’s run. Like how we only have one Tory MP in Scotland, but are run by a Tory/Lib Dem government.
Also, I learned pretty much nothing about Scottish literature until I was in my 20s. And I studied English at university in Scotland. So…I can safely say that I feel even Scots (like yourself) repress Scottish culture for fear of alienating England.
John in Manila
August 2, 2012 at 7:16 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
In a world where you need good English to prosper, wherever you are, teaching
Gaelic and Scots in Scotland to the detriment of English, would be almost a crime against the people.
Barbara G
October 1, 2012 at 8:17 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
John. No, not really. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_advantages_to_bilingualism